Is heart failure misdiagnosed in hospitalized patients with preserved ejection fraction? From the European Society of Cardiology - Heart Failure Association EURObservational Research Programme Heart Failure Long-Term Registry

Diagnostic and therapeutic practice for Heart Failure with preserved ejection fraction around the world: An international survey

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

There is a gap in knowledge about implementing diagnostic tools and therapy for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) in clinical practice. This survey aimed to assess real-world practice in HFpEF diagnosis and treatment in the international medical community.

METHODS

An independent academic web-based 29-question survey was designed by a group of heart failure specialists and posted by email and through scientific societies and social networks to a broad community of physicians worldwide.

RESULTS

1.460 physicians from 95 countries answered the survey, with a mean age of 42.2±10.4 years, 39.4 % females, and 85.1 % were cardiologists. The left ventricular ejection fraction cut-off value selected for HFpEF diagnosis was 50 % for 89 % of participants. The scores for the probability of diagnosis of HFpEF were used only by 47.2 %, and H2FPEF was the most used score (31 %). Natriuretic peptides were used by 87.4 % of participants for the diagnostic workup, while the diastolic stress test was only used by 26.2 %. 54.4 % of participants chose SGLT2 inhibitors as their first drug treatment, followed by diuretics (18.6 %) and ACE inhibitors (8.4 %).

CONCLUSIONS

In an international academic survey on HFpEF management, the criteria for screening and diagnosis of HFpEF patients remain aligned with classic international guidelines with a low use of diagnostic scores. SGLT2i is the leading therapeutic drug class used for this heterogeneous patient population. These results raise the need to improve education and awareness on diagnosing and managing HFpEF patients.

Casting Light on Early Heart Failure: Unveiling the Prognostic Potential of the E/(e' × s') Index

It has been shown that patients with NYHA class I and II have a high morbidity and mortality burden. We investigated the value of a new tissue Doppler index, E/(e' × s'), to predict cardiac events in the long-term follow-up of patients at an early stage of heart failure (HF). Sequential echocardiography was conducted on a consecutive cohort of 212 hospitalized HF patients, pre-discharged and with three-month follow-up. The primary end point consisted of cardiac death or readmission due to HF worsening. During follow-up, cardiac events occurred in 99 patients (46.7%). The first cardiac event was represented by cardiac death in 8 patients (3.8%) and readmission for HF in 91 patients (42.9%). A Kaplan-Meier analysis did not show a significantly different event-free survival rate between patients with NYHA class I and II. The composite end point was significantly higher in patients with an E/(e' × s') >1.6. The E/(e' × s') at discharge was the best independent predictor of cardiac events. Those exhibiting an E/(e' × s') > 1.6 at discharge, with a subsequent deterioration after three months, displayed the poorest prognosis concerning cardiac events, HF-related rehospitalization, and cardiac mortality (all p < 0.05). In early-stage HF patients, an E/(e' × s') > 1.6 emerged as a robust predictor of clinical outcomes, especially when coupled with a deterioration in condition.

Diagnosis of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a systematic narrative review of the evidence

Heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a common condition in clinical practice, affecting more than half of patients with HF. HFpEF is associated with morbidity and mortality and with considerable healthcare resource utilization and costs. Therefore, early diagnosis is crucial to facilitate prompt management, particularly initiation of sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors. Although European guidelines define HFpEF as the presence of symptoms with or without signs of HF, left ventricular EF ≥ 50%, and objective evidence of cardiac structural and/or functional abnormalities, together with elevated natriuretic peptide levels, the diagnosis of HFpEF remains challenging. First, there is no clear consensus on how HFpEF should be defined. Furthermore, diagnostic tools, such as natriuretic peptide levels and resting echocardiogram findings, are significantly limited in the diagnosis of HFpEF. As a result, some patients are overdiagnosed (i.e., elderly people with comorbidities that mimic HF), although in other cases, HFpEF is overlooked. In this manuscript, we perform a systematic narrative review of the diagnostic approach to patients with HFpEF. We also propose a comprehensible algorithm that can be easily applied in daily clinical practice and could prove useful for confirming or ruling out a diagnosis of HFpEF.

Epidemiology, Clinical Characteristics and Cause-specific Outcomes in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction

Heart failure (HF) is a global pandemic affecting 64 million people worldwide. HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) has traditionally received less attention than its main counterpart, HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). The incidence and prevalence of HFpEF show geographic variation and are increasing over time, soon expected to surpass those of HFrEF. Morbidity and mortality rates of HFpEF are considerable, albeit lower than those of HFrEF. This review focuses on the burden of HFpEF, providing contemporary data on epidemiology, clinical characteristics and comorbidities, cause-specific outcomes, costs and pharmacotherapy.

The Concept of "Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction": Time for a Critical Reappraisal

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is frequently observed in elderly physically deconditioned subjects, mainly women with hypertension, obesity, glucose intolerance/diabetes, atrial fibrillation, anaemia, coronary artery disease, chronic pulmonary disease, and chronic renal insufficiency. In practice, these conditions represent the majority of cardiac diseases we deal with in our daily clinical practice. For this reason, the HFpEF disease does not exist as a single entity and, as such, no specific unifying therapy could be found. New classification attempts still do not consider the multifaceted aspect of the HF syndrome and appear rather as an artefactual attempt to categorize a condition which is indeed not categorizable. The aim of the present article is to critically review the construction of the concept of the HFpEF syndrome and propose the return of a pathophysiological approach in the evaluation and treatment of patients. Considering the huge economic efforts employed up to date to run awfully expensive trials and research in this field, it is time to call action and redirect such resources towards more specific pathophysiological classifications and potential specific therapeutic targets.

Expert proposal to characterize cardiac diseases with normal or preserved left ventricular ejection fraction and symptoms of heart failure by comprehensive echocardiography

Currently, the term "heart failure with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (HFpEF)" is based on echocardiographic parameters and clinical symptoms combined with elevated or normal levels of natriuretic peptides. Thus, "HFpEF" as a diagnosis subsumes multiple pathophysiological entities making a uniform management plan for "HFpEF" impossible. Therefore, a more specific characterization of the underlying cardiac pathologies in patients with preserved ejection fraction and symptoms of heart failure is mandatory. The present proposal seeks to offer practical support by a standardized echocardiographic workflow to characterize specific diagnostic entities associated with "HFpEF". It focuses on morphological and functional cardiac phenotypes characterized by echocardiography in patients with normal or preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). The proposal discusses methodological issues to clarify why and when echocardiography is helpful to improve the diagnosis. Thus, the proposal addresses a systematic echocardiographic approach using a feasible algorithm with weighting criteria for interpretation of echocardiographic parameters related to patients with preserved ejection fraction and symptoms of heart failure. The authors consciously do not use the diagnosis "HFpEF" to avoid misunderstandings. Central illustration: Scheme illustrating the characteristic echocardiographic phenotypes and their combinations in patients with "HFpEF" symptoms with respect to the respective cardiac pathology and pathophysiology as well as the underlying typical disease.

Prognostic Value of HFA-PEFF Score in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

Background

The HFA-PEFF score may help in predicting long-term outcomes in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) for severe aortic stenosis and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (EF).

Methods

We retrieved data from 1,332 patients undergoing TAVI between 2010 and 2019 from the Prospective Segeberg TAVI Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03192774). We calculated the HFA-PEFF score for 1,022 patients who had preserved EF (≥50%). To assess the prognostic value of the HFA-PEFF score in predicting adverse events, we dichotomised the patients according to a cut-off score of five (score <5 group: n=528 (51.6%), score ≥5 group: n=494 (48.3%)).

Results

The HFA-PEFF score ≥5 groups were older (81.9±6.3 years vs. 80.3±6.9 years; p<0.001) and had a higher prevalence of atrial fibrillation (35.1% vs 20.8%; p<0.001) and chronic kidney disease (30.1% vs 26.1%; p<0.001). Kaplan-Meier survival analyses over 24 months showed increased cardiovascular (CV) mortality (12.5% vs. 7.7%, log-rank; p=0.028) and first heart failure-related rehospitalisation (7.7% vs. 4.0%, log-rank p=0.014) in the HFA-PEFF score ≥5 groups compared with those of lower scores. No significant difference in all-cause mortality between both groups was observed (22.0% vs. 17.9%, log-rank p=0.127). In multivariate analysis, HFA-PEFF score ≥5 failed to predict CV mortality (aHR 1.37, 95% CI: 0.90-2.08, p=0.140) and time to first heart failure-related rehospitalisation (aHR 1.49, 95% CI: 0.83-2.65, p=0.181).

Conclusion

The HFA-PEFF score showed limited value in predicting long-term mortality and adverse heart failure-related events in patients with preserved EF undergoing TAVI. Clinical variables specific to this population could complement the HFA-PEFF score for better risk prediction.

Clinical Phenotypes of Heart Failure across the spectrum of Ejection Fraction: A Cluster Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Heart failure (HF), and especially HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), remains a challenging condition to define. The heterogenous nature of this population may be related to a variety of underlying etiologies interacting myocardial dysfunction.

METHOD

Alberta HEART study was a prospective, observational cohort that enrolled participants along the spectrum of heart failure including: healthy controls, people at risk of HF, and patients with HF and preserved (HFpEF) or reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). We aimed to explore phenotypes of patients with HF and at-risk of developing HF. Utilising 27 detailed clinical, echocardiographic and biomarker variables, latent class analysis with and without multiple imputation was undertaken to identify distinct clinical phenotypes.

RESULTS

Of 621 participants, 191 (30.8%) and 169 (27.2%) were adjudicated by cardiologists to have HFpEF and HFrEF respectively. In the overall cohort, latent class analysis identified four distinct phenotypes. Phenotype A (n=152, 24.5%) was a healthy and low risk group. Phenotype B (n=129, 20.8%) demonstrated increased left ventricular mass and end-diastolic volumes, with elevated natriuretic peptides and clinical features of congestion. Phenotype C (n=128, 20.6%) was primarily characterised by obesity (80%) and normal indexed cardiac chamber sizes, low natriuretic peptide levels and minimal features of congestion. Phenotype D (n=212, 34.1%) consisted of elderly patients with clinical features of congestions. Phenotypes B and D demonstrated the highest risk of mortality and hospitalization over a median follow-up of 3.7 years.

CONCLUSION

Phenotypes with congestive features demonstrated increased risk profiles. Heart failure is a heterogenous classification which requires further work to appropriately categorise patients based on the underlying etiology or mechanism of impairment.

Cardiovascular medication in patients with raised NT-proBNP, but no heart failure in the SHEAF registry

OBJECTIVES

We aim to assess the association of cardiovascular medications with outcomes of patients referred to the diagnostic heart failure (HF) clinic with symptoms or signs of possible HF, raised N-terminal pro-brain-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) but no evidence of HF on transthoracic echocardiography (TTE).

METHODS

Data were collected prospectively into the Sheffield HEArt Failure (SHEAF) registry between April 2012 and January 2020. The inclusion criteria were symptoms or signs suggestive of HF, NT-proBNP >400 pg/mL, but no evidence of HF on TTE. Cox proportional-hazards regression model was used to investigate the association between the survival time of patients and different cardiovascular medications. The outcome was defined as all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

From the SHEAF registry, we identified 1766 patients with raised NT-proBNP with no evidence of HF on TTE. Survival was higher among the younger patients, and among those with hypertension or atrial fibrillation (AF). Mortality was increased with male gender, valvular heart disease and chronic kidney disease. Using univariate Cox proportional-hazards regression, the only cardiac therapeutic agent independently associated with all-cause mortality was beta-blocker (HR 0.86; 95% CI: 0.77 to 0.97; p=0.02). The use of beta-blockers was significantly higher in patients with AF (63% vs 39%, p<0.01) and hypertension (51% vs 42%, p<0.01). However, using multivariate Cox proportional-hazards regression to adjust for all variables associated with mortality, the influence of beta-blockers became non-significant (HR 0.96; 95% CI: 0.85 to 1.1, p=0.49).

CONCLUSION

When all variables associated with mortality are considered, none of the cardiovascular agents are associated with the improved survival of patients with suspected HF, raised NT-proBNP but no HF on echocardiography.

Discriminative Utility of Apelin-to-NT-Pro-Brain Natriuretic Peptide Ratio for Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction among Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients

BACKGROUND

Apelin is a regulatory vasoactive peptide, which plays a pivotal role in adverse cardiac remodeling and heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction. The purpose of the study was to investigate whether serum levels of apelin is associated with HF with preserved election fraction (HFpEF) in patients with T2DM.

METHODS

The study retrospectively involved 101 T2DM patients aged 41 to 62 years (48 patients with HFpEF and 28 non-HFpEF patients). The healthy control group consisted of 25 individuals with matched age and sex. Data collection included demographic and anthropometric information, hemodynamic performances and biomarkers of the disease. Transthoracic B-mode echocardiography, Doppler and TDI were performed at baseline. Serum levels of N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) and apelin were measured by ELISA in all patients at the study entry.

RESULTS

Unadjusted multivariate logistic model yielded the only apelin to NT-proBNP ratio (OR = 1.44; p = 0.001), BMI > 34 кг/м2 (OR = 1.07; p = 0.036), NT-proBNP > 458 pmol/mL (OR = 1.17; p = 0.042), LAVI > 34 mL/m2 (OR = 1.06; p = 0.042) and E/e' > 11 (OR = 1.04; p = 0.044) remained to be strong predictors for HFpEF. After obesity adjustment, multivariate logistic regression showed that the apelin to NT-proBNP ratio < 0.82 × 10-2 units remained sole independent predictor for HFpEF (OR = 1.44; 95% CI: 1.18-2.77; p = 0.001) HFpEF in T2DM patients. In conclusion, we found that apelin to NT-proBNP ratio < 0.82 × 10-2 units better predicted HFpEF in T2DM patients than apelin and NT-proBNP alone. This finding could open new approach for CV risk stratification of T2DM at higher risk of HF.

Do we need a definition of acute heart failure with preserved ejection fraction?

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) might soon become the most prevalent type of acute heart failure. Still, despite more than 30 years of research on HFpEF, not only do we lack specific treatment, but also a generally accepted definition of HFpEF. Since 2016, several definitions and algorithms have been proposed for diagnosing both diastolic dysfunction and overt HFpEF. However, all of them focus exclusively on chronic (and not acute) HFpEF. Recent studies showed that acute HFpEF may be overdiagnosed in patients presenting with acute dyspnoea. The aim of our article was to address two questions: (1) why there is a need for specific diagnostic criteria for acute HFpEF, and (2) what such definition of acute HFpEF should encompass.KEY MESSAGES:Several scores and algorithms have been proposed for diagnosing chronic heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), however, so far, there is no definition of acute HFpEF.Acute HFpEF seems to be overdiagnosed in patients presenting with acute dyspnoea.Definition of acute HFpEF should comprise both (1) features of chronic HFpEF and (2) markers of increased left ventricular filling pressures and/or of pulmonary congestion.

Effect of Empagliflozin on Worsening Heart Failure Events in Patients With Heart Failure and Preserved Ejection Fraction: EMPEROR-Preserved Trial

BACKGROUND

Empagliflozin reduces the risk of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, but additional data are needed about its effect on inpatient and outpatient heart failure events.

METHODS

We randomly assigned 5988 patients with class II through IV heart failure with an ejection fraction of >40% to double-blind treatment with placebo or empagliflozin (10 mg once daily), in addition to usual therapy, for a median of 26 months. We prospectively collected information on inpatient and outpatient events reflecting worsening heart failure and prespecified their analysis in individual and composite end points.

RESULTS

Empagliflozin reduced the combined risk of cardiovascular death, hospitalization for heart failure, or an emergency or urgent heart failure visit requiring intravenous treatment (432 versus 546 patients [empagliflozin versus placebo, respectively]; hazard ratio, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.67-0.87]; P<0.0001). This benefit reached statistical significance at 18 days after randomization. Empagliflozin reduced the total number of heart failure hospitalizations that required intensive care (hazard ratio, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.52-0.96]; P=0.028) and the total number of all hospitalizations that required a vasopressor or positive inotropic drug (hazard ratio, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.55-0.97]; P=0.033). Compared with patients in the placebo group, fewer patients in the empagliflozin group reported outpatient intensification of diuretics (482 versus 610; hazard ratio, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.67-0.86]; P<0.0001), and patients assigned to empagliflozin were 20% to 50% more likely to have a better New York Heart Association functional class, with significant effects at 12 weeks that were maintained for at least 2 years. The benefit on total heart failure hospitalizations was similar in patients with an ejection fraction of >40% to <50% and 50% to <60%, but was attenuated at higher ejection fractions.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, empagliflozin produced a meaningful, early, and sustained reduction in the risk and severity of a broad range of inpatient and outpatient worsening heart failure events. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03057977.

Characteristics and Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation with Respect to the Presence or Absence of Heart Failure. Insights from the Multicenter Polish Atrial Fibrillation (POL-AF) Registry

Background: We aimed to assess characteristics and treatment of AF patients with and without heart failure (HF). Methods: The prospective, observational Polish Atrial Fibrillation (POL-AF) Registry included consecutive patients with AF hospitalized in 10 Polish cardiology centers in 2019–2020. Results: Among 3999 AF patients, 2822 (71%) had HF (AF/HF group). Half of AF/HF patients had preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Compared to patients without HF (AF/non–HF), AF/HF patients were older, more often male, more often had permanent AF, and had more comorbidities. Of AF/HF patients, 98% had class I indications to oral anticoagulation (OAC). Still, 16% of patients were not treated with OAC at hospital admission, and 9%—at discharge (regardless of the presence of HF and its subtypes). Of patients not receiving OAC upon admission, 61% were prescribed OAC (most often apixaban) at discharge. AF/non–HF patients more often converted from AF at admission to sinus rhythm at discharge compared to AF/HF patients (55% vs. 30%), despite cardioversion performed as often in both groups. Class I antiarrhythmics were more often prescribed in AF/non–HF than in AF/HF group (13% vs. 8%), but still as many as 15% of HFpEF patients received them. Conclusions: Over 70% of hospitalized AF patients have coexisting HF. A significant number of AF patients does not receive the recommended OAC.

Electronic healthcare records and external outcome data for hospitalized patients with heart failure

Heart failure is one of the most important reasons for hospitalization among elderly individuals and is associated with significant mortality and morbidity. Epidemiological studies require the establishment of high-quality databases. Several datasets that primarily involve heart failure populations have been established in Western countries and have generated many high-quality studies. However, no such dataset is available from China. Due to differences in genetic background and healthcare systems between China and Western countries, the establishment of a heart failure database for the Chinese population is urgently needed. We performed a retrospective single-center observational study to collect data regarding the characteristics of heart failure patients in China by integrating electronic healthcare records and follow-up outcome data. The study collected information for a total of 2,008 patients with heart failure, containing 166 attributes.

On the search for the right definition of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

The definition of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) has evolved from a clinically based "diagnosis of exclusion" to definitions focused on objective evidence of diastolic dysfunction and/or elevated left ventricular filling pressures. Despite advances in our understanding of HFpEF pathophysiology and the development of more sophisticated imaging modalities, the diagnosis of HFpEF remains challenging, especially in the chronic setting, given that symptoms are provoked by exertion and diagnostic evaluation is largely conducted at rest. Invasive hemodynamic study, and in particular - invasive exercise testing, is considered the reference method for HFpEF diagnosis. However, its use is limited as opposed to the high number of patients with suspected HFpEF. Thus, diagnostic criteria for HFpEF should be principally based on non-invasive measurements. As no single non-invasive variable can adequately corroborate or refute the diagnosis, different combinations of clinical, echocardiographic, and/or biochemical parameters have been introduced. Recent years have brought an abundance of HFpEF definitions. Here, we present and compare four of them: 1) the 2016 European Society of Cardiology criteria for HFpEF; 2) the 2016 echocardiographic algorithm for diagnosing diastolic dysfunction; 3) the 2018 evidence-based H2FPEF score; and 4) the most recent, 2019 Heart Failure Association HFA-PEFF algorithm. These definitions vary in their approach to diagnosis, as well as sensitivity and specificity. Further studies to validate and compare the diagnostic accuracy of HFpEF definitions are warranted. Nevertheless, it seems that the best HFpEF definition would originate from a randomized clinical trial showing a favorable effect of an intervention on prognosis in HFpEF.

Is heart failure misdiagnosed in hospitalized patients with preserved ejection fraction? From the European Society of Cardiology - Heart Failure Association EURObservational Research Programme Heart Failure Long-Term Registry

Aims

In hospitalized patients with a clinical diagnosis of acute heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), the aims of this study were (i) to assess the proportion meeting the 2016 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) HFpEF criteria and (ii) to compare patients with restrictive/pseudonormal mitral inflow pattern (MIP) vs. patients with MIP other than restrictive/pseudonormal.

Methods and results

We included hospitalized participants of the ESC‐Heart Failure Association (HFA) EURObservational Research Programme (EORP) HF Long‐Term Registry who had echocardiogram with ejection fraction (EF) ≥ 50% during index hospitalization. As no data on e', E/e' and left ventricular (LV) mass index were gathered in the registry, the 2016 ESC HFpEF definition was modified as follows: elevated B‐type natriuretic peptide (BNP) (≥100 pg/mL for acute HF) and/or N‐terminal pro‐BNP (≥300 pg/mL) and at least one of the echocardiographic criteria: (i) presence of LV hypertrophy (yes/no), (ii) left atrial volume index (LAVI) of >34 mL/m²), or (iii) restrictive/pseudonormal MIP. Next, all patients were divided into four groups: (i) patients with restrictive/pseudonormal MIP on echocardiography [i.e. with presumably elevated left atrial (LA) pressure], (ii) patients with MIP other than restrictive/pseudonormal (i.e. with presumably normal LA pressure), (iii) atrial fibrillation (AF) group, and (iv) ‘grey area’ (no consistent description of MIP despite no report of AF). Of 6365 hospitalized patients, 1848 (29%) had EF ≥ 50%. Natriuretic peptides were assessed in 28%, LV hypertrophy in 92%, LAVI in 13%, and MIP in 67%. The 2016 ESC HFpEF criteria could be assessed in 27% of the 1848 patients and, if assessed, were met in 52%. Of the 1848 patients, 19% had restrictive/pseudonormal MIP, 43% had MIP other than restrictive/pseudonormal, 18% had AF and 20% were grey area. There were no differences in long‐term all‐cause or cardiovascular mortality, or all‐cause hospitalizations or HF rehospitalizations between the four groups. Despite fewer non‐cardiac comorbidities reported at baseline, patients with MIP other than restrictive/pseudonormal (i.e. with presumably normal LA pressure) had more non‐cardiovascular (14.0 vs. 6.7 per 100 patient‐years, P < 0.001) and cardiovascular non‐HF (13.2 vs. 8.0 per 100 patient‐years, P = 0.016) hospitalizations in long‐term follow‐up than patients with restrictive/pseudonormal MIP.

Conclusions

Acute HFpEF diagnosis could be assessed (based on the 2016 ESC criteria) in only a quarter of patients and confirmed in half of these. When assessed, only one in three patients had restrictive/pseudonormal MIP suggestive of elevated LA pressure. Patients with MIP other than restrictive/pseudonormal (suggestive of normal LA pressure) could have been misdiagnosed with acute HFpEF or had echocardiography performed after normalization of LA pressure. They were more often hospitalized for non‐HF reasons during follow‐up. Symptoms suggestive of acute HFpEF may in some patients represent non‐HF comorbidities.